site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   8854 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like so much of the Ukraine discussion avoids the object-level, do the “pro-Ukraine” people think that if we continue the status quo (US/NATO funding the war but not willing to put boots on the ground), that Ukraine can actually win? As someone who doesn’t think so, I feel like trying to get a ceasefire done ASAP is the right move both practically and morally. I understand the value of deterring wars of aggression and that Russia is morally in the wrong etc. etc. but I feel like trying to freeze the conflict in place gives more credibility to US/NATO deterrence and saves thousands of young men’s lives, compared to funding the war until Ukraine collapses spectacularly just to impose the maximum costs on Russia. I see people online argue that Russia would collapse before Ukraine does if we just maintain or somewhat increase current support, but Trump doesn’t seem to think so and the European politicians just speak in moralism and world war 2 analogies. If Trump sees things the way I do, that financial/material support is just delaying an inevitable Ukraine loss and this isn’t worth risking world war 3 by putting boots on the ground, then it doesn’t take any evil motives to think that trying to end or freeze the conflict as soon as possible is the best course of action.

If one thinks the war is moral whether or not Ukraine wins, then the question of whether they can win is secondary. The real metric would be marginal cost/benefit.

I think most of the rules-based-international-order types fall into this category. They’ve valued deterring or debilitating Russia higher than you.

But if Ukraine cannot actually win despite what NATO has done already and might do in the future, not only does it not deter Russia, but it demonstrates to the world that NATO is a paper tiger. It’s not going to deter Russia from trying for more, as they won the war. It’s not going to convince China. It’s probably not going to convince anyone else. NATO went all in on saving Ukraine and couldn’t.

They’ve valued deterring or debilitating Russia higher than you.

This is the part that's getting me into some real-life arguments. My friends who say they support Ukraine also seem to hate Putin even more. Their hatred of Russia/Putin vastly overshadows the reality of what's going on to the actual Ukrainians they say they support. Men, both Ukrainians and Russians, are dying in droves. Somehow that seems to balance things out for them. I don't know.

It comes off as "I hate Putin, so I'm perfectly OK with all of you dying to achieve this goal."

It makes me a bit sad, honestly. How can one support Ukraine while at the same time knowing full well that you're just killing off a generation of her men?

I hate Putin, so I'm perfectly OK with all of you dying to achieve this goal

This is highly uncharitable. It's not just about hating Putin, the point is that the worse the war is for Russia the greater deterrent it stands as against wars of aggression. And of course it's not as if the US is forcing Ukraine to fight, just furnishing them some weapons to do so.

I think Ukraine can win the same way Finland "won" the Winter War i.e. inflict disproportionate casualties against a numerically superior opponent for years on end, and after being beaten into exhaustion sign a peace treaty in which they give up 10% of their territory and accept forced neutrality. On paper this is a loss, but it kept them out of the communist bloc and they ended up a western-aligned NATO member without suffering economically or politically the way Poland or Czechoslovakia did in the interim.

At the end of the day, it's the Ukrainians at the front making the decision to fight or not, and as long as they're shooting at our geopolitical rivals I have no problem with arming them. So far, their revealed preference is to hold the line, and the moment that changes it will be clearly evident in the form of mass protests, mutinies, or defections, and their government will have no choice but to sue for peace. It's not my place to tell them how many of their lives are or aren't worth sacrificing for their cause, whatever they think that cause is.

The Ukrainians at the front were abducted off the street. It’s a conscript army. If I lived in Ukraine, I would have fled by now.

Ukraine may not win - not morally or practically, but because it’s too dangerous. Ukrainian troops approaching Russia or taking back Crimea will see nuclear weapons flying. Pushing Russia to the brink is a bad idea.

it's the Ukrainians at the front making the decision to fight or not

The videos I’ve seen of Ukrainian troops shooting their foreign blocking detachments so they can withdraw from the front, and the last few literal suicide bombings of Ukrainian draft offices by bereaved parents would seem to suggest that it is not, in fact, their decision whether to continue fighting.

Right now it looks like Russia can beat Ukraine by attrition. But a lot of things could happen before Russia actually won. For a ceasefire to make sense to Ukraine, it cannot result in speeding up Russia's timetable, and similarly for it to make sense to Russia, it cannot result it giving Ukraine a chance to improve its position.

Right now the best offer Russia is willing to consider is "We take part of Ukraine now and all of it later". This is obviously not acceptable to Ukraine, even if the alternative is a continued grinding war of attrition that they seem likely to lose.

Right now the best offer Russia is willing to consider is "We take part of Ukraine now and all of it later". This is obviously not acceptable to Ukraine, even if the alternative is a continued grinding war of attrition that they seem likely to lose.

What I don't understand is why Ukraine doesn't put a realistic offer on the table? Because as far as I know, the Ukrainian position is still "we will take back all the lost territories including Crimea".

Come to Russia with a realistic offer to end the war. If Putin refuses to negotiate, so be it. Then we'll know the war can't be ended and we can continue to support Ukraine with no reservations.

But Zelenskyy is not even trying, and is instead pursuing a strategy that is most likely to end with military collapse, or worse, a direct NATO-Russia conflict.

A NATO Russian conflict is a win for Zelenskyy.

Yes, I know. It's just a loss for everyone else.

You start with an offer you are willing to back down from. But you don't pre-backdown from that position before you even get to the table. A return to status quo from 2014 is not going to fly, but you don't back down from that position until the Russians are actually negotiating. You are pre-emptively weakening your own position because now you have to make concessions in negotiations on top of the concessions you gave up without anything in trade.

You don't go to Russia with a reasonable offer, and they won't come to you with a reasonable offer. That is what the negotiations are for. If Putin wants to negotiate he will do so, regardless of what Zelensky is saying he will agree to.

Fair enough- I’m no expert on the state of the battlefield and maybe there’s no ceasefire that Russia would agree to. But between “continue slowly losing now” and “pause, then maybe continue to lose later” it’s not obvious which is the better choice (maybe Putin drops dead, maybe European arms spending actually materializes). And if the Ukrainian war effort is completely reliant on the US, and the US thinks trying to get a ceasefire done is beneficial I think it’s the US’s right to insist on it. It just feels like Trump is being called pro-Russia for trying to negotiate while the Europeans get to LARP as serious defenders of the post-war order, when ultimately they aren’t willing to risk world war 3 over this conflict either.

I understand this, but what, if anything, should the US do if Putin invades a Baltic state and/or Finland?

Try to beat our Iraq kill ratio

Tactical air strikes on their forward positions and supply convoys. Russia would just lose. The much-feared Russian tank rush has been proven to be a meme.

I think we should defend them fully because we have a formal defense treaty with them.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats